Comment 17 for bug 800478

I'm glad this code is getting more eyes. It's a complicated bit of logic. Thanks for all the input and code, Liam.

Before I get into your code, can you demonstrate any specific problems solved by your branch? If fixing the problem at hand means restructuring the code (as opposed to my 2-line change), that's fine, but it would be good to have specifics to justify the effort. Also, I think I'll wait until you've installed and tested the code before I give it a whirl.

Regarding some of your other questions, we're getting a little far afield with some of the feature-like stuff (allowing the funding source to be passed in, etc.) for the purposes of this LP ticket. Granted, it's easy and you're in there, but we're muddying the waters. Maybe open a separate LP for some of the feature-like stuff?

I'm being a little rigid, because I know there are people waiting on a solution to the problem at hand and I'd rather not require that we back-port an entirely new version of the function unless it's warranted. Having said all of that, working code wins. Give me something that installs cleanly, works, and passes at least the pgtap tests I pushed (and preferably more), I'll gladly sign off.

Removing pullrequest for now.